I'll stand by what i've said before. Corbyn himself is not the problem with the Labour Party. It's not Corbyns policies that are causing Labour to lose support, it is the constant internal party divisions being stirred up by the right wing of the Labour Party who would much rather the Conservatives won the next election, than Labour with Corbyn as leader.

It's so painstakingly obvious that those not getting it are choosing not to get it.

You are 100% wrong on this.

The Corbynistas don't care that Labour is unelectable under Corbyn. They think that the moderates in the party are no better than the Tories, so "we might as well have the real ones ".

All the polls give Corbyn the lowest ever personal approval rating, and Labour supporters themselves think May would make a better PM.

Regardless of his history or his views, which are despised by the vast majority of the electorate, he just makes gaff after gaff. He is relentlessly incompetent.

The Corbynistas don't care that Labour is unelectable under Corbyn. They think that the moderates in the party are no better than the Tories, so "we might as well have the real ones ".

All the polls give Corbyn the lowest ever personal approval rating, and Labour supporters themselves think May would make a better PM.

Regardless of his history or his views, which are despised by the vast majority of the electorate, he just makes gaff after gaff. He is relentlessly incompetent.

No amount of unity could get that duffer elected.

It's a real issue. And a crime that Labour cannot mount even a reasonable opposition at the time when the Torys lurch from crisis to crisis in Westminster chambers, the Westminster regulatory authorities and the law courts.

...and the first to call Blair for betraying the party when he was more in tune with their aspirations than they are.

Agree with this - rhe whole Blair thing was madness.

But highlights the left (or elements of it) for what they are - textbook intellectuals that prize ideological purity over reality.

I also think many on the left prefer to preach from the sidelines because then they cant be proved wrong, amd they dont have to make the tough choices.

They should split, the sensible wing should form a new party with the libs, maybe even attract a few of the centre ground tories, amd leave the loonies to eternally preach on high streets on saturday mornings.

They should split, the sensible wing should form a new party with the libs, maybe even attract a few of the centre ground tories, amd leave the loonies to eternally preach on high streets on saturday mornings.

Unfortunately, that would leave the entire infrastructure, estate and financial assets in their hands which is exactly what a lot of them would like.

Remember the high esteem in which John McDonnell holds the Labour Party . . .

Former shadow minister Angela Smith said: “It is quite clear from the comments he is broadly following an entryist Trotskyist agenda which is incompatible with Labour values.”

Is it?

Im no socialist, and so my opinion probably isnt worth as much as others on here, but as a student amd observer of politics, i would say Labour values, while always being socialist in the broadest, most general sense of the word, are to be a party that has evolved with the society it wants to represent.

Mass socialism of the early part of the 20th century is dead in the west, and for good reason. Trotsky was very much a part of one of the main reasons why.

Labour evolved with society, and embraced a social democracy under New Labour that was both popular and successful. Was it socialism? Absolutely not. Because socialism as people lile Corbyn et al imagine it, is dead.

Those clinging on to its corpse and trying to revive it are like religious types harking back to a bygone age of piety. And it is ironic, that these so called progressives are actually the most regressive force in modern British politics.

So no, i dont believe that trotskyism, whatever theoretical split hair branch of socialist theory that represents, is anymore part of the modern labour party, or more importantly the future labour party, than mass industrialised workers or general strikes.

Im no socialist, and so my opinion probably isnt worth as much as others on here, but as a student amd observer of politics, i would say Labour values, while always being socialist in the broadest, most general sense of the word, are to be a party that has evolved with the society it wants to represent.

Mass socialism of the early part of the 20th century is dead in the west, and for good reason. Trotsky was very much a part of one of the main reasons why.

Labour evolved with society, and embraced a social democracy under New Labour that was both popular and successful. Was it socialism? Absolutely not. Because socialism as people lile Corbyn et al imagine it, is dead.

Those clinging on to its corpse and trying to revive it are like religious types harking back to a bygone age of piety. And it is ironic, that these so called progressives are actually the most regressive force in modern British politics.

So no, i dont believe that trotskyism, whatever theoretical split hair branch of socialist theory that represents, is anymore part of the modern labour party, or more importantly the future labour party, than mass industrialised workers or general strikes.

So you agree with many of the SNPs policies then, except from the constitutional debate.

I don't see many of the SNP policies in the document but as I've said before the constitution is not the be all and end all for me. If the economic argument was decent and questions around currency, defence, employment law and anti trade union laws were answered I'd consider a Yes vote in any future referendum. But I would never vote Tory over SNP under any circumstances

The big problem with trying to gauge the appeal of these policies is they are being presented by a party that has redefined the word shambolic and a leader universally acknowledged as hopeless.

If Labour had a charismatic individual with genuine leadership qualities, no backstory of several decades of generally awkward student style politics and a united, well organised party behind them, then we might be able to judge if the electorate could be persuaded to vote for fairly moderate socialism.

This Labour party and leadership could have the best policy programme possible: almost nobody thinks they'd make even a halfway decent stab at implementing it. And nobody thinks they're suitable to be entrusted with all the incoming events they'd have to deal with running a country.

This is pretty tragic as heavy defeat is inevitable and when they get that nailed on humping, they will be consigning all these policies to the dustbin alongside them. Any babies will be well and truly gone with the bathwater. Cheerio to any hope of even a moderately left agenda in the UK for decades to come.

Scottish Labour look to be doomed. Kezia Dugdale has absolutely no chance of winning.

As for Labour in England, if Chuka Umunna takes over as leader I think they have a real chance of challenging the Conservatives in 5 years time but if the far left of the party elect another socialist leader they will have no chance of beating May.

New Labour needs to be resurrected in England for them to have a chance of winning.

Scottish Labour look to be doomed. Kezia Dugdale has absolutely no chance of winning.

As for Labour in England, if Chuka Umunna takes over as leader I think they have a real chance of challenging the Conservatives in 5 years time but if the far left of the party elect another socialist leader they will have no chance of beating May.

New Labour needs to be resurrected in England for them to have a chance of winning.

New Labour is dead and Labour has returned to its roots. It's time Blairites accepted that their time has gone. Politics should be about policies not personalities. I expect Kez to lead SLP into the next Scottish election

I've always believed that a party should stick to their core values and try and influence the views of the electorate to see things their way, rather than changing their own principles to fit that of the electorate.

If every party changed their principles to fit that of the electorate, we'd be as well just having a one party state with no opposition.

Agree - realistically, it needs to be winning over non traditional, non-core voters.

Kind of like the Tory party are doing, and New Labour did before that and Thatcher before that. You can't do anything but protest from opposition. In fact Corbyn did nothing but protest when he was in government!

I've always believed that a party should stick to their core values and try and influence the views of the electorate to see things their way, rather than changing their own principles to fit that of the electorate.

If every party changed their principles to fit that of the electorate, we'd be as well just having a one party state with no opposition.

Good response, you really addressed the point I was making. Or perhaps you know yourself that what I say is true, don't want to admit it and have no way of addressing it because you know that it's true?

Good response, you really addressed the point I was making. Or perhaps you know yourself that what I say is true, don't want to admit it and have no way of addressing it because you know that it's true?

It's certainly true that you believe it but that's not to say what you believe is true..

I've always believed that a party should stick to their core values and try and influence the views of the electorate to see things their way, rather than changing their own principles to fit that of the electorate.

If every party changed their principles to fit that of the electorate, we'd be as well just having a one party state with no opposition.

The Labour Party has always been an evolving entity. The party of Bevan was a very different one from that of Attlee which in turn differed from that of Benn and Foot and so on. New Labour was just another stage in that morphosis.

The constant pining for 'core values' is tiresome. Labour, or any party, changes over time. The Conservative manifesto released this week had phrases in it that would have had Thatcher scratching her head for example. To be relevant a party has to adapt to the society it lives in, the SNP have done so with great success in recent years and a part of that has been shifting their social and economic stance dramatically.

Corbyn, Abott, McDonnell et al are stuck in a time warp and their performance is reflective of that.

PM Awards General Poster of The Year 2015, 2016, 2017. Probably robbed in other years

The Labour Party has always been an evolving entity. The party of Bevan was a very different one from that of Attlee which in turn differed from that of Benn and Foot and so on. New Labour was just another stage in that morphosis.

The constant pining for 'core values' is tiresome. Labour, or any party, changes over time. The Conservative manifesto released this week had phrases in it that would have had Thatcher scratching her head for example. To be relevant a party has to adapt to the society it lives in, the SNP have done so with great success in recent years and a part of that has been shifting their social and economic stance dramatically.

Corbyn, Abott, McDonnell et al are stuck in a time warp and their performance is reflective of that.